Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In Massachusetts, disputes involving the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund (the Fund) often hinge on strict compliance with statutory procedures and limitations periods. Insurers that pay benefits on claims involving uninsured employers may later seek reimbursement from the Fund, but the process requires timely and complete documentation. A recent decision from a Massachusetts court clarifies the standards that apply to such claims and underscores the significance of administrative record-keeping in workers’ compensation litigation. If you were hurt while working, it is important to understand your rights, and you should consult a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney.

Case Setting and Factual History

It is reported that the plaintiff, an insurance company, issued a workers’ compensation policy to an employer in 2003. The employer was later removed from coverage due to nonpayment of premiums, rendering it uninsured. In 2005, an employee of the now-uninsured employer sustained a compensable work injury. Although the employer lacked active insurance at the time, the plaintiff insurer voluntarily paid benefits to the injured worker pursuant to G.L. c. 152, § 65(2)(e), which authorizes insurers to pay benefits where the status of coverage is uncertain or the claim is otherwise unresolved.

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation (the Act), people that suffer harm at work are generally eligible to recover workers’ compensation benefits. In exchange for the protections offered by the Act, though, they waive the right to pursue personal injury for damages from their employer. Notably, the Act precludes employees not only from filing claims seeking compensation for physical harm but also bars claims for emotional harm as well, as explained in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you suffered physical or mental harm in the workplace, you might be owed benefits, and it is wise to confer with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney regarding your rights as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked as a scientist for the defendant pharmaceutical company from October 2007 until November 2015. After the plaintiff made a presentation to his superiors, he faced harsh criticism. He subsequently developed mental health issues, of which he advised his employer. He was ultimately terminated. He then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting that he was terminated due to his mental health issues, in violation of the ADA, and asserting claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moved for summary judgment.

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act Exclusivity Provisions

The court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. As to the plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court found that they were barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act. Specifically, the court explained that pursuant to Massachusetts law, the Act precludes common law actions where the plaintiff is proven to be an employee of the defendant, his harm is deemed a personal injury as defined by the Act, and it is demonstrated that the harm arose out of and during the court of employment. Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts law, employees who suffer work-related injuries can often recover workers’ compensation benefits from their employers. Only injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment are compensable, however. As such, if a claimant cannot establish that the harm they suffered is work-related, their claim for benefits may be denied. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what evidence a claimant must offer to show that their harm was work-related in a case in which it ultimately denied the claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. If you were hurt while working, you might be owed benefits from your employer, and you should speak to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation attorney about your options.

The Claimant’s Harm

It is alleged that the claimant worked as a night custodian for a charter school from 2007 through July 2015, when he was terminated. Three weeks after he lost his job, he had a heart attack when he was mowing his lawn. He subsequently filed two workers’ compensation claims. In the first, he alleged he suffered a workplace injury in August 2014 following a negative interaction with his supervisor that caused him to suffer psychological and emotional harm. In the second, he alleged he suffered a workplace injury on the day he was terminated that also caused him to suffer psychological and emotional harm and brought about his heart attack.

It is reported that both claims were brought before an administrative judge who determined that the bona fide personnel action defense barred the plaintiff’s claims. The claimant appealed to the Department of Industrial Accidents, and while it concluded that the administrative judge improperly applied the bona fide personnel action defense, the denial of the claimant’s claims was nonetheless proper. The claimant then appealed to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. Continue reading →

Under Massachusetts law, employees who suffer injuries in the workplace can often recover workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). In exchange for such statutory protections, they lose the right to seek civil damages from their employers for personal injuries. They can, however, seek compensation from other parties that contributed to their injuries. If they do, such parties are barred from seeking indemnity from the injured party’s employer by the exclusivity provision of the Act, as discussed in a recent Massachusetts ruling. If you suffered harm at work, it is in your best interest to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to determine what benefits you may be owed.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the employee, while working for the employer, visited a third-party property to empty a dumpster manufactured by the defendant. When he was emptying its contents, the dumpster fell onto him, causing him to sustain injuries to the lower half of his body. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. In turn, the defendant filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the employer, arguing that it was liable on theories of contractual and common law indemnification.

The Exclusivity Provision of the Act Bars Third Party Claims Against Employers

The court denied the defendant’s motion to the extent that it sought to pursue common law indemnification claims against the employer. The court explained that motions for leave to join third-party defendants will not be granted when doing so would be futile. It elaborated that such a motion would be futile if the third-party complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Continue reading →

Massachusetts employees who suffer workplace injuries can typically recover workers’ compensation benefits from their employers pursuant to the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act).  In exchange for the right to receive such benefits, however, they are generally precluded from pursuing civil claims for work-related injuries against their employers by the Act’s exclusivity provision. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed the applicability of the exclusivity provision with regard to claims asserting harm caused by negligence supervision and hiring. If you were injured at work, it is smart to talk to a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer about what benefits you may be able to recover.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, her former employer, in which she alleged that the defendant failed to provide a safe workplace and asserted claims of negligent hiring and supervision, among other things. The defendant moved to dismiss the aforementioned claims on the grounds that they were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act.

The Exclusivity Provision of the Act

The court agreed with the defendant’s assertion and granted its motion to dismiss. The court noted that the exclusivity provision of the Act is a comprehensive preemption that precludes injured workers from pursuing tort actions that arise out of employment related injuries that are compensable through the payment of workers’ compensation benefits under the Act. Continue reading →

People involved in catastrophic workplace accidents often suffer not only physical harm but mental injuries as well. Thus, if they seek damages for their losses, they may have to undergo medical examinations to evaluate their physical and cognitive detriments. Typically, only physicians can conduct such examinations. Recently, a Massachusetts court evaluated whether neuropsychologists are considered doctors for the purpose of such examinations in a case in which the plaintiff sought damages for harm sustained in a workplace accident. If you suffered injuries at work, you might be able to recover benefits and pursue claims against third parties, and it is smart to meet with a Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer to assess your options.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff suffered critical injuries while working on a construction site. His co-conservators subsequently filed both a workers’ compensation claim seeking benefits from the plaintiff’s employer and a civil lawsuit seeking damages from the general contractor for the site on the plaintiff’s behalf. According to the report of a neuropsychologist, the plaintiff suffered from cognitive and physical deficits as a result of the accident.

Reportedly, the defendant’s neuropsychologist disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion after reviewing his medical records, and the defendant moved to have the plaintiff undergo an independent medical examination. The plaintiff objected to the motion on the grounds that the neuropsychologist was not a physician and therefore was precluded from examining the plaintiff pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 35. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

In Massachusetts, if an employee dies due to a fatal work accident, their family members can often recover survivor benefits pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). Only the survivors of deceased employees are owed such benefits, however. In other words, family members of independent contractors, volunteers, and other non-employees are not eligible for such benefits. Recently, a Massachusetts court discussed what factors they analyze in determining whether a person is an employee as defined by the Act. If you lost a loved one in a workplace accident, you may be owed benefits, and you should contact an experienced workers’ compensation attorney.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that a worker died a work-related death. His wife was subsequently awarded workers’ compensation survivor benefits in a claim against his employer and the employer’s insurance company. The insurer appealed the decision of the Department of Industrial Accidents reviewing board, which affirmed the decision of the administrative judge. The insurer argued, in part, that the administrative judge erred in determining that the worker was an employee as defined by the Act.

Determining if a Person is an Employee as Defined by the Act

Under Massachusetts law, the question of a person’s employment status within the meaning of the Act is essentially a question of fact for the board. As such, it should not be set aside if it is supported by the evidence. Further, the determinations of the weight to grant the evidence, credibility assessments, and findings of fact are the sole function of administrative judges. Thus, the courts grant weight to their specialized knowledge, experience, and technical competence. Continue reading →

The Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) provides the sole remedy for parties who suffer injuries arising out of the course and scope of their employment. There are exceptions to the exclusivity provision of the Act, however, that allow employees to pursue civil claims against their employers. The exceptions to the exclusivity provision were the topic of a recent Massachusetts opinion issued in a case in which a legal secretary sought compensation for harm caused by intentional acts. If you sustained harm at work, it is in your best interest to consult a capable Massachusetts workers’ compensation lawyer regarding what benefits you may be able to recover.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Reportedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant as a legal secretary at his law firm. Initially, she was his only employee, but he expanded his staff over the years. The evidence demonstrated that he regularly engaged in abusive behavior towards the plaintiff, such as belittling and verbally attacking her and screaming and shouting in her face.

It is alleged that the plaintiff ultimately left the defendant’s employ and filed a lawsuit against him, asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress and other claims. The defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, arguing they were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Act. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant then appealed. Continue reading →

In any civil lawsuit, the parties will engage in discovery during which they will exchange documents and depose witnesses to attempt to obtain facts in support of their position. Not all materials are discoverable, however, as certain information is protected by privilege. In a recent product liability case in which it is alleged that medication caused birth defects,  the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts discussed when a plaintiff can be compelled to disclose information relied upon by and obtained from a consulting expert. If you were or a loved one suffered injuries due to  a defective product you should speak with a trusted Massachusetts personal injury attorney about your potential claims.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant setting forth product liability claims alleging that  drug manufactured by the defendant and prescribed to pregnant women caused birth defects in their children. In part, the plaintiffs relied on a report by an expert third-party witness, in support of their argument that the defendant’s drug caused birth defects. The defendants sought to depose the third-party witness, and sought documents regarding the relationship between the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the third-party witness via discovery. Plaintiffs and the third-party witness both filed motions for a protective order arguing that the documents sought were protected by the work-product doctrine. The court ultimately denied the motions, finding that the documents were not privileged.